N.Y. Town Challenges T-Mobile’s Cell Tower Suit on 10th Amendment Grounds

T-Mobile’s July 13 claims that the town of Oyster Bay, New York, ran afoul of the Telecommunications Act by denying its application for a rear yard variance to install a wireless telecom facility (see 2307140001) violate the 10th Amendment “by commandeering local municipalities to issue zoning approvals and building permits,” despite local objections and compliance with state and local “substantive and procedural law,” said the town’s answer Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-05339) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip.

T-Mobile’s claims also are barred by its failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and by "the applicable statute of limitations,” said Oyster Bay’s answer. The claims also are barred by the doctrine of waiver and estoppel, said the town.

The 10th Amendment confirms all legislative power not conferred on Congress by the Constitution is reserved for the states, said Oyster Bay’s answer. Absent from the list of conferred powers “is the power to issue direct orders” to the governments of the states “to enforce a federal statutory scheme or policy,” it said.

At least three U.S. Supreme Court decisions -- Printz v. U.S. in 1992, New York v. U.S. in 1997 and Murphy v. NCAA in 2018 -- recognized the “limitation” that Congress may not commandeer the legislative process of the states or its municipalities “by directly compelling them to enforce a federal regulatory program,” said Oyster Bay’s answer. T-Mobile’s claims violate the 10th Amendment’s “anti-commandeering doctrine” by trying to enforce “the federal government’s wireless telecommunications regulatory program, the TCA and regulations issued by the FCC” it said.

The TCA “expressly preserves local zoning authority and oversight concerning requests for permission to construct or install telecommunications facilities within local municipalities,” said Oyster Bay’s answer. With few exceptions, nothing in the TCA “shall limit or affect the authority” of a state or local government to make decisions about “the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,” it said.

Contrary to T-Mobile’s assertions, the actions of Oyster Bay and its Zoning Board of Appeals haven’t imposed “an unlawful prohibition” on wireless telecommunications services, said the town’s answer. Nor have Oyster Bay’s actions prohibited or unlawfully delayed T-Mobile’s ability “to provide interstate or intrastate telecommunications service,” it said.

The Eastern District of New York lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over T-Mobile’s federal claims, said the town’s answer. The claims aren’t ripe, it said. They therefore don’t present “a justiciable claim for relief” under Article III’s “case or controversy clause,” based on “prudential policy considerations and concepts of federalism,” it said.